# An Overview Of the Peer Review Process ## pyOpenSci open peer review steps There are several components to the pyOpenSci peer review process. Below, we overview the entire process from start to finish. ### Step 0. *optional* : Author submits pre-submission inquiry A **presubmission inquiry** is useful if you are unsure whether your package is in scope. To submit a pre-submission inquiry, open up an issue using the presubmission template in our [pyopensci/software-review repository](https://github.com/pyOpenSci/software-review/issues/new/choose/). During this time an editor in chief will review for scope and perform a basic check for package infrastructure. - Estimated time: ~1-2 weeks **Below, are the basic checks that your package should have prior to being submitted for peer review.** These are the checks that an editor in chief and/or editor will look at when evaluating your package for review. ```{include} /appendices/editor-in-chief-checks.md ``` ### 1. Author submits their package for review To do this, you open an issue using the software submission template in our [pyopensci/software-review repository](https://github.com/pyOpenSci/software-review/issues/new/choose/). ### 2. Editor in chief reviews package submission The editor in chief will review your submission at this point for both package scope and minimal infrastructure criteria (listed above). - TIME ~2 weeks (or longer if editor requests changes that take the author longer to implement) ### 3. Editor finds reviewers for package At this point if your package has the minimal infrastructure requirements and is in scope, the editor in chief will assign an editor to review your package. That editor will then identify suitable reviewers. Time: ~2-3 weeks ### 4. Peer review of submitted Python Package begins Once we have an editor and 2 reviewers on board, review begins. **Reviewers have 3 weeks to return a review.** To do this, they will use our reviewer template in the [reviewer guide](/how-to/reviewer-guide.md) and paste that, filled out, into the issue. TIME: ~3 weeks ### 5. Author responds to reviews At this point the authors should respond to the review. We prefer that **authors respond within 2 weeks of the submitted review**. We also understand that it may take longer to actually implement the changes requested in the review. However, we kindly request that authors respond to reviews to acknowledge that they have seen them. The reviewers are encouraged to open pull requests and issues to help the maintainers update their package. *Often there is some back and forth between reviewers and maintainers at this step.* There is no specified duration for this period. Rather as long as all parties are responsive within 2 weeks, the review shall continue until the author has completed work to address the reviews. ### 6. Package acceptance Once the maintainers have completed updating the package, the assigned editor will ask the reviewers if they are happy with changes made. At this point the editor performs one last check on the package and accepts it if that is appropriate. Now, there are a few final cleanup activities including: * Adding the pyOpenSci peer-reviewed badge to the package README file. * Creating a new release on GitHub from the reviewed version. * Adding package authors and the package to the pyOpenSci website. The package is now accepted into the pyOpenSci ecosystem! ### JOSS submission JOSS refers to the [Journal of Open Source Software](https://joss.theoj.org/). If the maintainer wishes, and their package is within JOSS' scope, they can now be fast tracked through the JOSS review process (another review is not required for this step). ## Peer review guides If you want to learn more about each step listed above, we suggest that you read through the peer-review guides below that are tailored to each role in the peer review process: ::::{grid} 1 1 1 2 :class-container: text-center :gutter: 3 :::{grid-item-card} {octicon}`code-square;1.5em;sd-mr-1` Author / Maintainer Guide :link: /how-to/author-guide :link-type: doc :class-header: bg-light Learn everything that you need to know about the peer review for **package maintainers** who submit a package to pyOpenSci for peer review. +++ Learn more » ::: :::{grid-item-card} {octicon}`pencil;1.5em;sd-mr-1` Editor Guide :link: /how-to/editors-guide :link-type: doc :class-header: bg-light +++ Learn about the process that editors follow in the pyOpenSci peer review process. +++ Learn more » ::: :::{grid-item-card} {octicon}`codescan-checkmark;1.5em;sd-mr-1` Reviewer Guide :link: /how-to/reviewer-guide :link-type: doc :class-header: bg-light Click here to read more about the process that reviewers take when reviewing a Python package for pyOpenSci. +++ Learn more » ::: :::{grid-item-card} {octicon}`pencil;1.5em;sd-mr-1` ✨ Editor in chief Guide :link: /how-to/editor-in-chief-guide :link-type: doc :class-header: bg-light The editor in chief is a rotating position within pyOpenSci held by members of the pyOpenSci editorial board. Learn more about the processes involved with being an editor in chief for pyOpenSci. +++ Learn more » ::: ::::